Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London and North Eastern Railway Bill,

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill,

Blackburn Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Yorktown (Camberley) and District Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Chatham and District Traction Bill [Lords],

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Services Bill [Lords],

Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],

Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Jarrow and South Shields Light Railways (Abandonment) Bill [Lords] (changed from "Jarrow and South Shields Traction Bill [Lords]"),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill,

London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill,

As amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Preston Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Beaumont Thomas Estate Bill [Lords],

Imperial Continental Gas Association Bill [Lords],

Rhodes Trust Bill [Lords],

Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL.

Ordered,
That, in the case of the Clyde Navigation Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL.

Ordered,
That, in the case of the Smethwick Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PUBLIC SAFETY ORDINANCE.

Mr. KELLY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of persons arrested under the Public Safety Ordinance, 1929, promulgated by the Viceroy under the special powers vested in him by Section 72 of the Government of India Act and designed to check the dissemination in British India from other
countries of certain forms of propaganda, and the names of the persons so arrested?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The Ordinance gives no power of arrest except in case of disobedience to an Order issued under it. So far as I am aware, no such Orders have yet been issued.

FOREIGN TRADE.

Mr. KELLY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any action has been taken by the Government of India to implement the recommendations of the Trade Mission sent out by the Indian Tariff Board to investigate and make proposals with a view to increasing the foreign market for Indian goods; and whether the Government are taking steps to appoint Indian trade commissioners at Alexandria, Mombasa, and Durban in accordnce with the trade mission's recommendation?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India are considering the question of appointing trade commissioners at the three places mentioned. The other recommendations of the Trade Mission are primarily for the consideration of the Indian mill industry. The Government of India reported at the end of last month that the industry had not yet approached them with any concrete proposals.

BOMBAY MILLS (STRIKE).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information with regard to the strike in the mills in Bombay; what were the reasons for it; and by whom was it organised?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Report of the Bombay Strike Inquiry Committee, of which a copy has been placed in the Library.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does that refer to the new strike which has occurred within the last two or three days?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir; I gathered from my hon. and gallant Friend's question that he was referring to the great strike of last year.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my Noble Friend aware that a new strike has occurred, and that some 120,000 mill operatives are said to be thrown out of work at the present time?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir, a great number of strikes have occurred; but, without more information as to which strike my hon. and gallant Friend referred to, I prepared my answer on the basis of last year's strike.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (BOMB OUTRAGE).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 5.
asked the Undersecretary of State for India if the Government of India has made further investigations into the action of some persons who threw explosive bombs in the Legislative Assembly in Delhi; and has he any fresh information to give to the House?

Earl WINTERTON: Investigations are proceeding, but I have no further information to communicate.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will there be also included in the investigations those Government officials and their officers who know something about that funny bomb?

Earl WINTERTON: I strongly protest against the outrageous suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that this bomb was thrown with the connivance of the Government. It is a most improper suggestion.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I ask the Noble Lord to bear in mind that popular feeling and popular opinion, whether pleasant or unpleasant, has to be taken into consideration by the Minister?

ARRESTS.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 6.
asked the Undersecretary of State for India what are the special qualifications of Mr. Milner White, who has been appointed to conduct the trial of the 31 Meerut prisoners on a charge of waging war against the King; and, seeing that out of the 31 arrested persons 13 have been residents and arrested in Bombay, and nine in Calcutta, and only one in Meerut, what are the reasons for the Government to refuse trial by jury in Bombay or Calcutta?

Earl WINTERTON: As regards the first part of the question, I have no official information, but I have seen in the Press a statement that Mr. Milner White has been appointed to conduct the magisterial inquiry in connection with the conspiracy case. Mr. Milner White is an experienced officer of the Indian Civil Service, of over 18 years' service, who holds the position of magistrate and collector of Muzaffarnagar in the Meerut division. As regards the second part, it was for the Government of India to choose the place of trial, subject to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the Noble Lord look at my question? We do not question the authority of the Government of India to choose Meerut; we only want to know why Meerut has been chosen, and why these people are denied trial by jury at their place of birth and residence?

Earl WINTERTON: I have already explained, in reply to a former question, that the reason for holding the trial at Meerut will emerge in the course of the proceedings which will take place there. Meerut is central, and is mentioned in the indictment as one of the many places where alleged offences occurred. With regard to the question of trial by jury, under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, it might be said that trial by jury is not normal, but rather that it is exceptional.

UNLAWFUL ORGANISATIONS.

7. Mr. THURTLE: asked the Undersecretary of State for India, in view of the fact that membership of the Communist party or the Workers' and Peasants' Society is now sufficient to render a resident in India liable to criminal proceedings, whether there are any other organisations in India membership of which constitutes an illegal act; and, if so, the names of these organisations?

Earl WINTERTON: As I am not quite sure that the information in possession of my Noble Friend is completely up to date, I have asked the Government of India to furnish a list of any organisations which have been declared to be unlawful in India.

Mr. THURTLE: Would the Noble Lord give me the names of those organisations which the India Office know at the present time to be regarded as illegal?

Earl WINTERTON: I could not, with out refreshing my memory, mention all the organisations in the indictment at the conspiracy trial, but one of them is the League against Imperialism.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the question correct in saying that membership of the Communist party or the Workers' and Peasants' Society is now illegal?

Earl WINTERTON: I have already said that I have not full information on this point, or rather, my Noble Friend has not, and, therefore, with my Noble Friend's sanction, the Government of India have been asked to furnish a list of the organisations in question.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: As the Noble Lord mentioned in his answer that these organisations are proclaimed to be illegal, will he say if they are pronounced illegal by any Act of Parliament of the Legislative Assembly in Delhi, or by an official?

Earl WINTERTON: I did not say they were proclaimed to be illegal. I said that one of the organisations mentioned in the indictment in the conspiracy trial was the League against Imperialism.

SMALL-POX, BOMBAY (VACCINATION).

Captain BOURNE: 1.
asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the Government of India propose to take any steps to prevent unvaccinated persons embarking for Europe from Bombay during the present epidemic of small-pox in that city; and, if so, can he state the nature of such proposals?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India report that Circulars were issued to shipping companies by the Port Health Department, Bombay, advising the vaccination of all passengers and crews of vessels leaving Bombay, except persons recently vaccinated, and it is understood that this advice is being followed. The latest available figures, those for the week ending 6th April, show that smallpox has been on the decline in Bombay City since the middle of March, the number of cases having fallen from 142 during the week ending 16th March to 86 during the week ending 6th April.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Are we to understand that vaccination is advisory and not compulsory?

Earl WINTERTON: At present, I understand that the local authorities dealing with the matter have issued circulars to the companies, advising vaccination of all passengers, but I cannot say, without reference, whether or not they have power to make vaccination compulsory. If they have, and they think it is advisable to do so, I have no doubt that vaccination will be enforced.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLOMON ISLANDS (WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS).

Viscount SANDON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state what decisions have been arrived at as to the recommendations made in the Report regarding the Solomon Islands, both as to inter-island wireless communications and other matters?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The investigations into the suggestion for a chain of wireless stations are not yet sufficiently advanced to enable a decision to be taken, but I hope shortly to communicate with the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific upon this and other matters dealt with in the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL VETERINARY SERVICES.

Viscount SANDON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken on the recommendations of the Report on the Colonial veterinary services and as to the formation of a unified Imperial service?

Mr. AMERY: The recommendations of the Committee which was appointed to inquire into the question of the organisation and efficiency of the Colonial Veterinary Services have been considered, and the Report—Cmd. 3261—has been sent, with my observations thereon, to the various Colonies and Protectorates. In my opinion, the most urgent problem to be faced is the present lack of qualified candidates, and certain Colonial Governments have been asked whether they would be willing to make contributions
towards the establishment of a Scholarship Scheme on lines similar to the existing Agricultural Scholarship Scheme. It is my wish to see this Scholarship Scheme brought into being as soon as possible, so that the first selection of scholars may be made during the summer of this year. The Colonial Advisory Council of Agriculture and Animal Health has been formed, and, in due course, the two Committees of Animal Health and of Agriculture are expected to develop. Various other recommendations have been approved in principle, but further examination of details is required.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (TRANSPORT).

Mr. DAY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount of money which was expended for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date in obtaining the advice of technical experts not permanently engaged in the Colonial Service in consultation with regard to matters of transport in the Crown Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories?

Mr. AMERY: I am not certain what is intended by the phrase "matters of transport," but the amount paid by the Crown Agents for the Colonies to consulting engineers during 1928 for advice relating to harbours, ships, railways and roads amounted to about £51,000.

Mr. DAY: Has this sum greatly increased during the 12 months?

Mr. AMERY: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICAN COLONIAL SERVICE.

Captain CAZALET: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been taken in regard to the conditions governing the West African Colonial Service; and whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the 18 months' tour?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. The question is still under survey.

Captain CAZALET: When are we likely to have the decision, especially in regard to the 18 months tour?

Mr. AMERY: The whole matter is being considered and discussed with all the authorities concerned. I hope, when Sir Samuel Wilson comes back, it may be possible to arrive at a decision, but I cannot give a definite undertaking that the decision will be at variance with the present system.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Meanwhile, do we understand that Sir Samuel Wilson is in West Africa now?

Mr. AMERY: No, but he was in West Africa a little time ago and has naturally taken part in these consultations.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOBAGO (STEAMSHIP SERVICE).

Viscount SANDON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the island of Tobago has been omitted from the itinerary of the new steamship service of the Canadian National Railways, provided in accordance with the undertaking contained in the Canada-West Indies trade agreement of 6th July, 1925?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware of the local reasons which have led to the omission of Tobago. Such omission was, however, contemplated in the terms of the Agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the nationalities of Mr. Rutenberg and Mr. Novomeysky when they applied for the Palestinian concessions and their nationality when the grant of these concessions was approved in principle?

Mr. AMERY: Mr. Novomeysky had been provisionally recognised as a Palestinian citizen for some years before he formally applied for the Dead Sea concession. He acquired that status fifteen months before the grant of the concession was approved in principle. The Rutenberg concessions were granted before the Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council was made, but Mr. Rutenberg had acquired that status by naturalisation before the final documents were signed.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What were the nationalities of these two gentlemen
before they acquired Palestinian citizenship?

Mr. AMERY: I think Russian in both cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (FRANCHISE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Samuel Wilson has instructions to consult with, and will have an opportunity to consult with, Mr. Srinivasa Sastri, in Kenya; and whether Sir Samuel is instructed that the question of communal representation is fixed and immovable so long as the present Government remains in office in this country?

Mr. AMERY: Sir Samuel Wilson has received no instructions other than those which I communicated to the House on 27th March. If the right hon. Member will read them, he will see that they cover the first part of his question. As regards the second part, it is obvious that any change in the basis of the franchise in Kenya could only come about by agreement, whatever Government were in power in this country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand, in the first place, that Mr. Sastri will be in the Colony at the same time as Sir Samuel Wilson, and, accordingly, will have an opportunity of meeting him? In the second place, do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to bind all Governments of this country never to alter the franchise in Kenya except with the consent of the three elements in the population?

Mr. AMERY: Mr. Sastri is going in order to lay the case of the Indian community before Sir Samuel Wilson and will certainly have occasion for meeting him and consulting him. In regard to the second question, I am not binding any Government, but I think the obvious facts of the case bind them all.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Government rule out of practical politics any question of modifying the franchise without the consent of the white settlers and the Indians and the natives, and, if so, does that apply to modifications desired by the natives or desired by the whites?

Mr. AMERY: No. The main basis—I am not discussing details—was laid down in the White Paper issued in the time of the Duke of Devonshire. In view of all the circumstances of the case, no one could suggest that the basis should be altered except by consent.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman's statement means, therefore, that no modification of the franchise in the direction desired by the natives or Indians will be brought about without the consent of the whites, but that modifications of the franchise in the interests of the whites might be brought about without the consent of the Indians or the natives?

Mr. AMERY: No. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not read more into my answer than I gave. I may remind him that the recent Commission did not suggest any change in the basis of the franchise except by consent.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the existing communal franchise was introduced without the consent of all parties concerned and only under instructions from a microscopic minority of the inhabitants? Why did not he ask everyone's consent then?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether all ex-British civil servants in the Irish Free State who have retired under Article X. of the Anglo-Irish Treaty have now received the compensation to which they have been held to be entitled by the judgment of the Privy Council in the Wigg and Cochrane case; what are the total numbers of such persons who have received compensation; what are the numbers, if any, of those who are still awaiting payment of compensation; and the reason for the delay in making payment?

Mr. AMERY: Warrants for the payment of additional compensation, on the basis of the judgment in the Wigg-Cochrane case, have been issued in 1,036 cases. I understand that four cases are still outstanding for the following reasons: In one case the pensioner is insane and an order of the Court is
awaited; in another the pensioner is dead and probate of the will is not complete; in the two remaining cases the officers' present addresses are not known.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAVEL ASSOCIATION.

Dr. DAVIES: 19.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can now make any statement as to the progress being made in connection with the promotion of the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland?

Mr. HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland was incorporated on 15th April as a company limited by guarantee. Membership application forms are now available and have been circulated widely throughout Great Britain and Ireland, and an appeal for a wide and representative membership was recently made by the President of the Association, my right hon. Friend, the Earl of Derby, in a letter to the leading newspapers. Membership is unlimited and if any Members of this House or any interests they represent have not received a form, I hope they will let me know.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSES (EXPORT).

Mr. DAY: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received a report from his inspectors stationed at the various ports of the number of horses that were intended for immediate slaughter exported during the six months ended to the last convenient date?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): During the six months ended 31st March, 1929, 4,959 horses were shipped to the Continent from ports in Great Britain, of which 2,607 went to Holland. Inquiries show that of the latter number approximately 90 per cent. were slaughtered on arrival. None of the horses exported to France or Belgium were intended for slaughter.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number exported to France and Belgium, and how long after they arrived there were they intended for slaughter?

Mr. GUINNESS: Our information was that they were not intended for slaughter
in France and Belgium. There has been a great change in the traffic, and there are now three times as many horse car-cases taken to France and Belgium as there were in 1920, and they are encouraged only to bring live horses in if they are wanted to work.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to the number of horses intended for immediate slaughter?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have answered it. I said inquiries show what percentage were slaughtered. We can only give the figures which we have been able to obtain.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRIXHAM HARBOUR (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).

Commander WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, under the proposals of the Budget, any financial assistance will be given to the harbour of Brixham; and if he has borne in mind the great burden put on the fishing industry of the town by the wrecks which occurred during the War?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am well aware of the very exceptional circumstances affecting the harbour undertaking of Brixham and of the unfortunate position in which it has been placed by reason of what took place in the War and other causes, and I am prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any application which may be made for financial assistance from the sum referred to in the Budget speech for the purpose of reducing dues and charges upon the fishing industry at the port.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman likely to be able to come to a definite charge in this respect, and would it be in the nature of an annual payment or a lump sum down?

Mr. GUINNESS: We are examining the matter of allocating any resources that are available on the basis of an annual subvention, and I hope in a very short time we shall be able to make an announcement.

Commander WILLIAMS: Should the authorities make direct application?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think that is necessary. We are in touch with all the authorities and are aware of the financial position.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: While the right hon. Gentleman is about it, will he also bear in mind fishing harbours that have lost their breakwaters owing to heavy weather but are not able to rebuild them out of their funds?

Mr. GUINNESS: That would be a matter for the Development Commission. That need of assistance is also before the Department.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also remember the quay facilities on the East Coast, particularly in the Hartlepools?

Mr. GUINNESS: East Coast harbours, generally speaking, are larger than the purely fishing harbours for which this special assistance was designed. All harbours of the same class will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARTISTS (FOREIGN ENGAGEMENTS).

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a case heard before the London County Council with reference to British artists who had accepted theatrical engagements abroad; and whether, when passports are granted to British women artists and girls for the purpose of accepting theatrical and carbaret engagements abroad, any investigations are made into the bonâ fides of same before the issue of the passports?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Yes, Sir. Before passports are granted to theatrical or variety artists who are taking up employment abroad it is the practice of the Passport Office to consult the Stage Guild or the Variety Artists' Federation, as the case may be.

Mr. DAY: With regard to chorus girls and dancers, is anything further done in addition to consulting the Stage Guild or the Variety Artists' Federation, which may not have any knowledge of the particular engagement?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think the Passport Office can do anything more than they do. The Variety Artists' Federation particularly is supposed to represent all these interests,
and the Passport Office made definite inquiries of the Federation before issuing passports.

Mr. DAY: As the Federation do not represent the chorus girls and dancers, can notifications be made abroad, in the places where these girls go, to see that they are not inveigled into the white slave traffic?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In regard to the particular case the hon. Member has mentioned, I will make inquiries.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been several cases mentioned in this House which I have brought to the notice of both himself and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will make inquiries about that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an account of the present position of the rival claimants to the Afghan throne?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: According to such information as is available the general position at the moment appears to be that King Amanulla's advance towards Kabul has reached the neighbourhood of Ghazni, which is still held by a small force of the Amir Habibulla's troops.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he refers to this gentleman as King Amanulla in view of the fact that he has abdicated and has not yet taken his place upon the throne?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The ex-King.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

CANTEEN, MARTLESHAM (WAGES).

Mr. KELLY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the wages paid to men, women, and youths for a normal week's work at the Air Force canteen, Martle-sham; and what is the number of hours which constitute a normal week at this place?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave him on 25th and 26th April.

Mr. KELLY: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but may I ask whether his Department has any control whatever over the canteens which supply the men belonging to the Royal Air Force? I desire to ask that question in view of the bad conditions obtaining in those canteens.

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. My Department is not responsible for the staffing of any Air Force canteens.

Mr. KELLY: Does any Government Department deal with that matter?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. There is no Government Department, as far as I know, that deals with that question. The three Services are represented on the committee, but our responsibility does not go further than that.

AIRSHIPS (NAMING).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give consideration to the naming of British airships, following the example afforded by the ships in His Majesty's Navy?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir; my hon. Friend's suggestion is already under consideration.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has my right hon. Friend come to a conclusion with regard to any particular names?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, not at present. Perhaps my hon. Friend will suggest one or two?

TALKING FILMS (COPYRIGHT)

Mr. CLARRY: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the desirability of bringing in legislation to deal with talking films, with the object of protecting the copyrights of British authors and composers from infringement by foreign producers and importing companies, requiring them to give proof of their license to incorporate British songs or music in their productions prior to the film being passed by the British Board of Film Censors?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I am advised that adequate statutory provision already exists in the Copyright Act, 1911, for the protection of British authors and composers against infringement of their copyrights by producers or importers of talking films, and, accordingly, the necessity for further action does not arise.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is compulsory for talking films to be registered as well as other films?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That matter does not arise out of the question.

Mr. CLARRY: Is there any reason why the censor of films should not examine the rights or licences of talking films that come into the country?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The censorship is not official, and there is no legal responsibility in the matter of talking films.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether talking films come under the same category as silent films?

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I shall be glad to give him a complete answer.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of migrants from Great Britain to the Dominions in the last four years and the total number for the years 1910 to 1913, inclusive?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The answer is somewhat long and contains a number of figures. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will accordingly allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain GARRO-JONES: If the answer is somewhat long, it contains more than I am asking for, namely, the total figures for the last four years and the total figures for 1910 to 1913 inclusive. There are only two figures required. Can I have the totals?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member is asking for the figures for eight years, and, of course, it is some-
times necessary to give certain explanations as to the significance of the figures given.

Captain GARRO-JONES: To explain them away.

Following is the answer:

Particulars of the numbers of emigrants and immigrants, as distinct from other passengers, were not obtained before 1st April, 1912. The aggregate balances outward of passengers of British nationality between ports in Great Britain and ports in the British Dominions (British North America, Australia, New Zealand and British South Africa) in each year from 1925 to 1928 and from 1910 to 1913, were as follow:


1925
61,142


1926
90,480


1927
75,863


1928
58,041


1910
152,716


1911
203,846


1912
213,253


1913
180,304

The balance of the passenger movement is the only measure of the net emigration available for both series of years. The data secured in recent years regarding the numbers of emigrants and immigrants show, however, that the above figures represent very closely the outward balance of migration from ports in Great Britain in those years.

Migrants from the Irish Free State who travelled to overseas countries via ports in Great Britain are included in the total stated.

Mr. TOMLINSON (for Sir ROBERT THOMAS): 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will give, with reference to the South Wales area only, the number of women and girls who have been assisted to emigrate to the Dominions since 1st January, 1928, stating the countries to which they went; how many of them underwent any course of training and of what nature; and how many from that area are at present training for Dominion emigration?

Mr. AMERY: No statistics are available as to the numbers of persons proceeding overseas from South Wales or from any other particular area, but I would invite the hon. Member's attention
to Section XVI of the Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee for 1928, Cmd. 3308, which shows that the proportion and until 1927 the actual number of women throughout the country who have been assisted under the Empire Settlement Act has steadily increased, and in 1927, the latest year for which figures are available, did not fall far short of the number of men. Nine women from South Wales have been trained at Market Har-borough for Australia since the hostel was opened in December, 1927, and 13 for Canada at the centre opened at Cardiff last November. At present five women from South Wales are in training at Cardiff.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 35.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that in the case of David Laing, late private, No. 8,923, Royal Hussars, of Glen-craig, Fife, no mention was made in his medical history of any latent disease at the time of enlistment; and why the Ministry, having accepted disability as aggravated and awarded a gratuity of £55, also providing later medical and surgical treatment, should now refuse to recognise this ex-soldier's wholly incapacitated condition prevalent since his discharge from hospital in March, 1927?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have already explained fully to the hon. Member why the disease present in this case could at the utmost be found to have been only to a slight extent aggravated, not caused, by War service. The powers and duties of the Ministry in such a case extend only to the disablement which can properly be ascribed to the effects of War service, and the fact that in the man's interest a period of treatment was conceded by the Ministry cannot be pressed as a ground for the acceptance by the Ministry of the whole condition present in this case as due to War service when the history of the case shows that it was not so caused.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is it not the fact that early disability had entirely passed away years before the man entered, and in proof of this is there only a reference to two scars when the man joined? Is that correct?

Major TRYON: It is true that the scars were noted when the man joined, and that shows that the illness was of pre-War origin.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is it not the fact that disability had entirely passed away before, that the man was operated upon and discharged from the hospital worse than he was before, that he was again admitted and later discharged, and has now been thrown upon the parish council? Is that not the position?

Major TRYON: It is undoubtedly the fact this man suffered from the trouble in his leg before the War, according to his own statement and according to the statement of his own doctor.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 36.
asked the right hon. Member for the Wells Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if the Kitchen Committee have decided to reduce the price of teas served to the Members of this House; if so, by how much per cup; and, if not, who will benefit by the remission of the tax on tea?

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Are we to understand that the effort of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to catch these votes has failed?

Sir R. SANDERS: I do not think that question should be addressed to me.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: The answer of the hon. Baronet is inaudible.

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer, I under stood, was that the question should be postponed. Is not that so?

HON. MEMBERS: No.

EDUCATION.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

Mr. THURTLE: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the National Union of Teachers urging that there shall be no change made in the existing status of non-provided schools in
England and Wales; if he has received resolutions from the Free Church Council and any other organisations to the same effect; and what action he proposes to take?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have seen a copy of a resolution passed by the National Union of Teachers, to which, I suppose, the hon. Member refers, though the resolution in question referred to the status of provided schools. I have received a copy of the resolutions of the Joint Education Committee of the Federal and National Councils of Evangelical Free Churches as well as resolutions from other bodies on the question of religious instruction. I hardly think the hon. Member will expect me to deal with the whole question of religious instruction in answer to a Parliamentary question but, in so far as these resolutions call for action in regard to religious instruction in provided schools, they are in tune with the policy which the Board of Education have been pursuing in the past and hope to carry further in the future.

Mr. THURTLE: May I take it that the Board of Education has no intention to interfere with the status quo?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member had better understand precisely what I have said in my answer to his question.

NEW DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. THURTLE: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of new Roman Catholic schools he has approved during his tenure of office and the percentage of the increase this number represents in the number of such schools existing at the time he took office, and the number of new Anglican schools he has approved during his tenure of office and the percentage increase this represents in the number of such schools existing at the time he took office?

Lord E. PERCY: Sixty-five new Roman Catholic schools (including schools intended to replace existing schools) have been approved by the Board between November 1st, 1924, and the present date, while two schools have been closed, giving a net increase of 63 or 5.5 per cent. during the period. The corresponding figures for Church of England schools are 15 approved, and 319 closed (including schools transferred to a local authority), giving a net decrease of 304 or 3 per cent.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (FRANCE).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has addressed any recent communication to the French Government on the subject of that country's debt to this country and, in particular, requesting the French Government to bring up the provisional settlement for ratification?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that all proper steps have been taken to make known to the French Government the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the early ratification of the War Debt Agreement.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does that mean that a recent communication has been addressed to the French Government?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say anything further without notice.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is not that the question of which I gave full notice in the ordinary way by putting the question on the Order Paper? Can I have a reply to the question. If not, I shall have to ask for it again the day after to-morrow.

Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to do so.

CUSTOMS EXAMINATION (PUBLICATIONS).

Captain CAZALET: 43.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Customs officials at English ports, especially Folkestone and Dover, demand now to examine every book and pamphlet that visitors may possess; and whether he has any information as to the effect of this scrutiny on our tourist trade or upon the importation into this country of indecent literature?

Mr. SAMUEL: It is the statutory duty of the Customs Department to prevent the importation into this country of indecent or obscene publications. But it is not the case that Customs officials demand to examine every book or pamphlet that visitors may possess. In the course of their examination of passengers' baggage they may examine
any books or pamphlets which they observe and such examination acts as a deterrent against the importation of indecent literature. I cannot imagine that it has any effect on tourist traffic.

Captain CAZALET: Can the Financial Secretary induce his officials to use a little more discretion and tact in carrying out these duties?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot admit the hon. and gallant Member's premises. I think our officials do the best they can, often under very difficult and trying circumstances. I will convey the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion to the proper quarter.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask the Financial Secretary to believe that I have crossed the Channel as often as most people, and that I have never had any discourtesy from the Customs people and have never been asked to show one single book?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have any fresh instructions been sent out, under the recent administration, on this matter?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say definitely offhand, but I am not aware of any.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the experience of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) does not coincide with the experience of the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain)?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PROVINCIAL STAFFS).

Mr. HURD: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of officials of the central departments outside London, not including the Customs and Inland Revenue, as compared with 1913, distinguishing between the various Ministries?

Mr. SAMUEL: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following table shows the approximate number of civil servants (excluding staffs of the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue Departments) serving
outside London as on the 1st January, 1927, which is the only date for which figures are available*.

Department.
Number.


Admiralty
3,524


Agriculture and Fisheries, Ministry of (including Ordnance Survey and Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew)
1,101


Air Ministry
1,304


Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
217


County Courts
1,389


Health, Ministry of (England)
771


Home Office
277


Labour, Ministry of
8,789


Mines Department
84


National Insurance Audit Department
299


Pensions, Ministry of
2,799


Post Office
68,222


Principal Probate Registry
185


Prison Commission
1,798


Public Trustee
72


Scientific and Industrial Research, Department of
611


State Management Districts Office
82


Stationery Office
186


Trade, Board of
968


Transport, Ministry of
74


War Office
2,485


Works, Office of
92


Wales.



Health, Board of
343


Scotland.



Agriculture, Department of
291


Education Department
155


Exchequer (including Register House and Law Charges)
338


Fishery, Board of
58


Health, Department of
544


Prisons
388


Northern Ireland.



Land Purchase Commission
70


Other Departments
347


Total
97,863

* The data on which the table is compiled exclude officers whose basic salaries exceed £500 per annum, those whose inclusive salaries exceed £700 per annum, part-time staffs and industrial staffs.

CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. AMMON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the subjects to be investigated by the proposed Royal Commission on the Civil Service will include the claim of ex-service men that all previous unpensionable service with the colours shall count towards Civil Service?

Mr. SAMUEL: The suggestion contained in the hon. Member's question will be duly considered before the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service are finally settled. But I am not yet in a position to say whether the subject referred to will be within or outside the scope of the Commission's inquiry.

TRANSPORT (FERRY LANE, TOTTENHAM).

Mr. CRAWFURD: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport the date on which work will be begun on the improvement of Ferry Lane, Tottenham?

Captain WALLACE (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is informed that the preparation of the plans and other preliminary measures are now well advanced and that the County Council expect that the works will be begun towards the end of the summer.

WORKING HOURS (AGREEMENTS).

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON (for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE): 28.
asked the Minister of Labour in what industries in this country there are agreements between employer and employé providing for a 48-hour week; and how many workers are covered by each of those agreements?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): In the great majority of organised industries the weekly hours of labour fixed by agreement between employers and workpeople are 48 or less. Particulars of the hours recognised in each of the principal industries will be found on pages 93 to 96 of the "Nineteenth Abstract of Labour Statistics" (Cmd. 3140). Particulars as to the numbers of workers covered by each of the Agreements fixing a week of 48 hours or less are not available, but some statistics as to the proportions of workpeople working a normal week of 48 hours, over 48 hours, and less than 48 hours, in a large number of industries, will be found on page 117 of the same "Abstract."

Mr. KELLY: Has not the hon. Member the approximate figure of the num-
ber of people who are working 48 hours or are not working 48 hours?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have given the hon. Member all the information I have. If he will look at Command Paper 3,140, page 117 he will find statistics giving him all the information.

ESTIMATES.

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Income Tax for 1929–30.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. LEES-SMITH: This is the Clause which reimposes the Income Tax for the year, and makes certain minor alterations. We do not object to the minor alterations, but we wish to take this opportunity of raising a general discussion upon the Income Tax and the policy that the Government have pursued in regard to it. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was opening his Budget, he stated that if he had known what the future held for him he would not in his first year of office have reduced the Income Tax. I remember noticing that as soon as he came into office he was beset by deputations from the Federation of British Industries, associations of manufacturers and chambers of commerce, telling him that the Income Tax at the height which it had then reached was discouraging industry and drying up savings, and I was rather surprised at the ease with which he accepted all these arguments. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in his speech last Thursday, dealt with the same point and, more or less, took the same lines. He spoke of the height of direct taxation but rather to my surprise went on to tell us that in spite of the height at which direct taxation now stands, direct taxpayers, according to the figures of the Colwyn Committee, are nevertheless saving money and accumulating capital hand over hand. I could not quite follow the explanation he gave of this phenomenon. In fact, I do not know what explanation he had in his mind; and I wish to put to the Committee the explanation which was suggested by hon. Members on this side of the House.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Will the hon. Member tell me the exact words and place in which I said that direct taxpayers are accumulating capital?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The particular words do not matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me what he means.

Mr. SAMUEL: It is not for me to make the hon. Member's bad case by presenting my good case. The hon. Member must make his own bad case himself.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not remember the exact phrase, but it is not necessary for my argument. The hon. Member stated that the amount of capital accumulated year by year was many hundred of millions of pounds.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Direct taxation.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Financial Secretary will not dispute the fact that the greater part of the actual capital savings in money year by year is made by direct taxpayers. I do not think that is disputed by any member of the Committee; and my point remains unshaken. I am suggesting an explanation why, although Income Tax and Super-tax stand high, the fact remains that direct taxpayers are saving and accumulating capital at the rate of hundreds of millions of pounds per year.

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this point. I do not agree that the hon. Member is putting my point of view or correctly quoting what I have said. I quoted on Thursday last what the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said on 22nd April I will give the hon. Member the exact quotation. He will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1134, for the 25th April, 1929. This is the quotation I made:
The other side is the side of industrial savings, that is, the amount which is available to-day for all kinds of industrial development calculated to increase employment"—
The hon. Member has just said that I said "direct taxpayers are accumulating capital." I did not use those words.
That was estimated by the Committee on National Debt and Taxation as something between £350,000,000 and £400,000,000 before the War, and it was thought that if allowance were made for increase in population and the rise in prices, the figure to-day should be perhaps about £600,000,000 and that the actual amount that we were saving in Great Britain was probably £150,000,000 per annum short of that total."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April. 1929; col. 657, Vol. 227.]
That quotation, taken from my speech on the 25th April, is merely a repetition, a quotation, of what the right, hon. Member for Central Edinburgh had said on the 22nd April, 1929. The definition of savings is laid down by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh and not by me. I adopted it. There is no word about "direct taxpayers."

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member is quoting figures which I do not dispute and which do not in any way shake my argument. My argument is this—and every Member of the Committee will agree with it—that the greater part of the industrial savings in money made year after year is made by direct taxpayers. That is not disputed, and the question I am now raising is: what is the explanation of the fact of these savings of some hundred millions of pounds are made each year in view of the high rate of taxation. The explanation which I suggest—I am not making this as a debating point but in order to enter into a serious explanation which would, I think, rather elucidate our financial position if the Committee would discuss it—is the explanation briefly suggested last week, that in order to understand this rather curious phenomenon you have to take into account the position in our national finances occupied by the National Debt. However great the rate of taxation may be, if a large part comes back to those who pay it, then it does not, in fact, diminish the amount of money they have for saving or spending.
What are the figures? The better off classes contribute in Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties about £450,000,000 a year in taxation, but the interest on the Sinking Fund on the National Debt, that part of it which is held in this country, amounts to a little over £300,000,000 a year. Broadly speaking, the greater part of the interest and Sinking Fund on the National Debt comes back to the more comfortably off classes of direct taxpayers, and, therefore, the suggestion I make is that the position is this. They pay their £450,000,000 direct or indirectly through banks and insurance companies and they receive back about £300,000,000 in interest and Sinking Fund on the National Debt and, therefore, they have the same margin as before for saving and spend-
ing. It leaves £150,000,000 which they contribute to general expenditure outside the National Debt which does not come hack to them in the same direct way, and this figure of £150,000,000, if you take into account the rise in prices, is only slightly greater than the amount which they contributed before the War, with the result that they are left with about the same margin not for savings only but, as we see it, for comforts and luxury. That is the reason why, although the rate of taxation is apparently high, it is having so little visible effect upon expenditure or the accumulation of capital, and why it is not having those injurious results on industry and on savings which are depicted in many financial newspapers and in many Conservative journals and speeches.
This view is supported by the evidence given before the Colwyn Committee. I signed the Minority Report of that Committee, and therefore I will quote only from the evidence. Mr. W. H. Coates, who I think impressed all members of the Committee as perhaps one of the ablest ex-Inland Revenue officials to appear before them said this:
The existing capital equipment of industry is sufficient to sustain a marked expansion of activity without additional capital requirements. If I now leave the realm of fact for opinion, I am not disposed to think that the existing rate of Income Tax has any harmful effect on the supply of permanent capital.
The view that I am expressing is also quite well borne out in the evidence that one sees. There is no lack of capital at the present day for any genuinely reliable new issue. In fact it is fairly evident that the supply of new savings is rather in excess of the real demand for them. Although I must not stray into that matter, this has a hearing upon the Government policy both on finance and on unemployment. It is clear now that there is not only wasted labour which this House is continually discussing, but wasted savings. That is why the Government is quite incorrect in stating that works of national development will take away savings and capital which would otherwise be used in useful private industry. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury discussed direct and indirect taxation, but it appeared to me that they dealt with the subject in a manner which is making these Debates
meaningless. The Financial Secretary dealt with indirect taxation, and then he took out of the area of indirect taxation a number of taxes which he described as theoretically indirect, and by this means he reached figures that were satisfactory to him.
Both he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of speaking of indirect taxation, began by giving us figures for the taxation of comforts. But what are comforts? I suppose cocoa is a comfort? It is not clear whether tobacco is a comfort in these calculations. I gather that matches are a comfort, but not tobacco, tout I do not know whether that is so. In any case we can all of us define comforts as we think fit, and if we are going to argue about direct and indirect taxation on those lines I hold that this class of discussion is becoming useless. There is one test which goes behind all these discussions. That test is, what is the actual taxation paid by members of the public with the different levels of income? On that subject we have again figures which were given by the Colwyn Committee, and they are very striking. The Colwyn Committee Majority Report took the case of a man with a wife and three children. They worked out the total cost of the taxation that would be paid. They found that a man with £1,000 a year was paying 11 per cent. of his income in taxation; that the man with £3 a week was paying 11½ per cent., a larger proportion than the man with £1,000 a year; and that the man with £2 a week was paying nearly 12 per cent., a larger proportion than either of the other two. These figures have, of course, been slightly altered by the repeal of the Tea Duty and the modification last year of the Sugar Duty, but still, taking that alteration into account, you get the result that the man with £2 a week pays nearly 4s. a week in taxation. That is more than is paid by the man with £20 a week or £1,000 a year. The broad fact is that, if you take the whole of this class of income—I am not taking the biggest incomes—that is incomes of £1,000 a year or less, you find that the most heavily taxed section of all is made up of those with between £2 and £3 a week—and they pay this taxation with less grumbling and complaint than those with £1,000 a year.

Mr. SAMUEL: So far as Income Tax is concerned, a married man with a wife and three children pays nothing on £250 a year—whether income is earned or from investment. I must ask the hon. Member to differentiate between the tax on income, which is an absolutely compulsory payment, and the taxation which is imposed, not only on necessities, but on the comforts of the people. Although every one is entitled to have comforts besides necessities, and the more people have of comforts the better we like it, the man who does not drink or smoke cannot use the argument that he is compelled to bear that heavy indirect taxation on certain items, because it rests entirely with him whether he pays the taxation or not on tobacco or alcoholic beverages. On the other hand, Income Tax payment is compulsory; but the married man with a wife and three children receiving £5 a week pays nothing for Income Tax. Indeed he is exempt up to over £7 a week.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: That scarcely deals with any point of mine. The Financial Secretary is quite entitled to introduce a new argument, but it would come better in his own speech, when he replies on the discussion. The fact that I am trying to bring out at the moment is that, taking taxation as a whole, direct and indirect, the most heavily taxed class in this country is made up of those with between £2 and £3 a week. Therefore I conclude that, although their taxation has been lately slightly diminished, the fact remains that they are still suffering from an inequality in taxation, and that this inequality needs further action to be finally corrected. Now I come to another section of the discussions on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave some reply to the kind of position that I am now putting to the Committee, by saying that we had to take into account not only his repeal of the Tea Duty, but the fact that there had been a fall in the cost of living, since be came into office, of about 18 points, and that that fall was equivalent to a reduction of about £160,000,000 a year in indirect taxation. That is so; that is how it works out. But he omitted to say that this fall in the cost of living has been accomplished throughout by a corresponding fall in wages.
If we go back to 1920 the fall in wages according to the figures of the Ministry of Labour has amounted to about £700,000,000 a year. In addition to that, whatever the final result of the fall in prices may be, its immediate effects undoubtedly are to discourage industry and to tend to increase unemployment. If, then, we add together the fall in wages, and the unemployment, which have accompanied the fall in prices, there is no reason to suppose that the workers of the country have secured by the fall in prices, for which the Chancellor claims credit, more than they have lost in other ways. The class which has obtained the full advantage of the fall in prices is the class that lives on debentures, preference shares and fixed interest bearing securities. The man who has Five Per Cent. War Loan will continue to draw the proceeds of his War Loan whatever the prices may be. The class of the community whom we call the rentier class, have, as a matter of fact, obtained the full advantage of the fall in prices without suffering a corresponding reduction of income such as the working class have had to accept.
That being an inevitable result of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the area of currency, in our opinion he ought to have tried to correct that result by his policy in taxation. He ought to have tried to ease the position for the poorer section of the community, even at the expense of the rentier class. He claims that he has done so, and I shall examine his claim. He says that he has reduced the Tea Duty by £6,000,000 and that last year he made modifications in the Sugar Duty which amounted to £3,000,000 or £9,000,000 altogether. On the other hand, during his period of office he has reduced the Income Tax and the Super-tax, but he has increased the Death Duties. The result of these combined transactions, according to the Estimates, was expected to be a general relief of taxation of about £32,000,000 a year—that is to say, more than three times the amount of relief which has arisen from the repeal of the Tea Duty, and the modification of the Sugar Duty, and which has gone to the less fortunate section in the State. Who has actually received the bulk of the £32,000,000? The figures of the Inland Revenue show practically the same results every year. They
reveal the fact that, of this reduction of Income Tax, about 70 per cent. goes to the receivers of unearned income, the class who live upon debentures, War Loan and fixed interest-bearing securities.
If we take the Tea Duty, the Sugar Duty, the Income Tax, the Super-tax and the Death Duties, the final result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving more than half of his reliefs of taxation to the rentier class who have in the last few years increased their share of the national wealth and increased the purchasing power of their income without lifting a finger to secure it for themselves, but simply as a result of the fall in prices in the last seven or eight years. That is a summary of the consequences of the taxation of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is on that broad and final result that the public judgment must eventually be formed.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I had no intention of addressing the Committee this afternoon, but the remarks which have just fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith)—whom we are all delighted to welcome back after his absence—impel me to make a reply. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is not in his place because I should have liked to have put some of my questions to him. The hon. Member for Keighley has made a great point of the large savings which have been made by the direct taxpayer in the last few years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley has not once, but over and over again, on the platform and in the Press—I do not know that I can quote any words of his to that effect in the House of Commons—insisted that we are not saving enough in this country. Speaking from memory, I think the right hon. Gentleman has quoted figures to the effect that we are at least £150,000,000 or £160,000,000 in deficiency in respect of our savings, as compared with the period before the War. I am again quoting from memory when I say that the Colwyn Committee put our pre-War savings at a figure of between £350,000,000 and £400,000,000 a year. In order to bring our savings up to the level of that figure, they should be at least £600,000,000 a year. I am utterly unable to reconcile, either the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Colne Valley or the report of the Colwyn Committee, with the suggestions which have fallen this afternoon from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley.
4.0 p.m.
There is another point which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee has insisted that all these savings, or by far the larger proportion of them, come from the direct taxpayer. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he confessed himself staggered by the amount of the savings of the non-Income Tax payer and he was good enough at that time—in 1924—to supply me with the details of the savings of those non-Income Tax payers. I have the figures clearly in mind, though I have not verified them, and for the year 1923, if I remember rightly, the annual savings of this class of taxpayers, amounted to no less than £216,000,000 a year. The Financial Secretary was good enough to supply me the other day with some further details arising out of a statement which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that, in opening the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the increase in the savings of small investors had amounted in the last four years to £170,000,000 a year. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was good enough to supply me with some details of that £170,000,000, which I will venture to quote to the Committee. In the case of the Post Office Savings Bank, the savings in 1924 amounted to £269,000,000, and in 1928 to £280,000,000. Trustee Savings Banks had gone up from £138,000,000 to £159,000,000: National Savings Certificates—this is net, of course—from £459,000,000 to £483,000,000; Railways Savings Banks, from £14,000,000 to £16,000,000; Industrial and Provident Societies, from £87,000,000 to £101,000,000; Building Societies (shares, deposits, and so on), from £137,000,000 to £235,000,000. In view of those remarkable figures, and in view of the not less remarkable figures which staggered the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his own confession on the Floor of this House, I am totally unable to follow the contention of my hon. Friend opposite
that the sayings are coming entirely from the direct taxpayers. The truth is that very large savings at the present time are being made, and it ought to rejoice the hearts of Members of all parties, and on all sides of the House, that very considerable savings are annually being made by classes who are not liable to Income Tax at all. Speaking, if I may—although I am afraid I must not pursue this point except in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite—as a student of social affairs, I regard no symptoms of our national life at the present time as more healthy and more encouraging than the savings of the non-Income Tax payers, and I venture very respectfully to suggest to my hon. Friend opposite that the figures I have quoted do very seriously detract from the argument which he has addressed to the Committee.

Mr. GILLETT: It is a little difficult to understand why the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) has accentuated so much one side of the prosperity of the country. In the old days we used always to understand it was taken for granted that the country was prosperous when we had a Tory Government. It was not usually the effort of the Tory party to go about to explain that there was a certain amount of prosperity which people had not seen. The point upon which I wish to dwell is the interesting speech of the Financial Secretary in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I have not quite understood why it is that at the beginning of the Committee to-day he seems to have repudiated some of the very optimistic thoughts that he presented to us the other day, and has seemed to question the conclusion which my hon. Friend on the Front Bench has drawn from his speech. As far as I could gather, he wished us to think that all he had done was to quote figures that my right hon. Friend—

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me; I objected to the hon. Member opposite using the word "direct."

Mr. GILLETT: Then I am quite accurate in thinking that we may still enjoy the very hopeful picture which the hon. Member put before us when he told us—and I understand that this is part of his Election address, and that his
hopes of return to this House are largely dependent upon this statement—
I hope the country does realise that we have added in five years to the pool of wealth in this country £2,250,000,000."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1929; col. 1086, Vol. 227.]
I understand that the hon. Member does not object to that, and that his objection was only to some inference that was put upon it. The hon. Member went on afterwards to build up even a greater accession of wealth. It rose, as his eloquence increased, to thousands of millions far beyond the figure I have quoted, and held out the hope that in a very short time the National Debt would be wiped off. I very much hope that that may be the case. I do not wish to do away with any of the hopeful views, and I am sure that it is not distasteful to anyone sitting on this side of the Committee to hear that there are sums of money which can be collected from the wealth of this country as the hon. Member seemed to think. What I cannot understand is why, if there has been this great accession of prosperity, it is not manifested more in the Income Tax. In the last published statement dealing with Income Tax, if we look at the gross figure—I am now taking the income on which tax is liable; there may be exemptions afterwards, but I am taking the gross figures—if we take the year 1924–25, the figure was £2,970,000,000; in 1925–26 it was £2,944,000,000; in 1926–27, £2,916,000,000, and the estimated figure for 1927–28 was £2,904,000,000. If the prosperity of which the hon. Member has talked is a very substantial factor, and is really building up the wealth of the nation, and not just making up for what might be termed the wear and tear of national life, you would have thought the figure would have been represented by an increase rather than a decrease.

Mr. SAMUEL: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the upset of 1926?

Mr. GILLETT: The hon. Member does not suppose that anyone who has attended the Debates in this House could have forgotten that, especially when it comes up as often as King Charles' head in the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, after all, that would not explain the whole thing, and even when we consider the industrial
disputes of that time, we have to settle who was responsible for the final breakdown of the negotiations. That would, however, be probably far from the present subject. When we examine these figures a little more closely, we find that the item dealing with profits from business has fallen in that period from £1,323,000,000 to £1,300,000,000, and, what is still more unsatisfactory, that part of the Income Tax which concerns wage-earners fell from £371,000,000 to £260,000,000. Therefore, Income Tax as a test of the prosperity of the nation held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the Financial Secretary last week, does not seem to be borne out by the figures dealing with Income Tax.
Before I touch on another matter in the hon. Gentleman's speech, I should like to ask him, if he is going to reply, whether he could explain to the Committee why it is that the allowances for repairs, lands and houses have increased from £42,000,000 in 1922–23 to £80,000,000 according to the Estimates, in 1927–28. Then in regard to wear and tear of machinery, the figure in 1922–23 was £57,000,000 and in 1927–28 the estimate was £73,000,000. On the other hand, when we look at the deductions, we find that there has been a fall from £500,000,000 to £335,000,000. It may be that there is an explanation, and that items which at one time appeared under other deductions have now, somehow, been divided up under these different headings. It would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman could explain this.
To come to another question raised by the hon. Member, here, it seems to me, we on this side could almost welcome a convert to certain principles of Labour finance, because in that part of his speech where he dealt with direct and indirect taxation, he took every effort to show that the figures under the Conservative Government are better than the figures under the Labour Government. Seeing that he has made such efforts to try to prove this, the presumption is that he thinks it better for the nation that, as we have been urging all the time, taxation should be adjusted more on the lines on which he claims—although I am afraid his claim is not a very strong one—that the Conservative Government have improved the position. The hon. Member stated that in 1913–14 indirect taxation
was 42 per cent. and direct taxation 58 per cent., but that after the Labour Government's Budget, these figures were, indirect 33 per cent., and direct 67 per cent., and that under the present Budget the indirect would be 35½ per cent. and the direct 64½ per cent. But then the hon. Member, in order to try to prove that the Conservative policy is more successful than the Labour, made rather an extraordinary statement:
In the current year 1929–30, if you include those taxes which are indirect taxes, but are practically no burden on the poor, such as oil, betting, silk, and the McKenna Duties—although, of course, I know they have every right to take advantage of purchasing the goods on which these taxes are placed, still these taxes are theoretically indirect—indirect taxation is 35.61 per cent."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1929; col. 1088, Vol. 227.]
Then he goes on to eliminate that form of taxation, and gets the indirect taxation down to 31.84, and raises the direct taxation. I think there is a mistake in his speech which, perhaps, he has not noticed, but the central point is that he claims that, having made that exemption, the indirect taxation becomes 31.84 and the direct 68.16, although another figure was given in his speech. The hon. Member claimed, first of all, that these taxes were no burden on the poor which is exceedingly doubtful, because they included the oil tax by which, I presume, he meant the Petrol Duty.

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will look at column 1088 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 26th April, he will see that I said in my speech:
If you take off these theoretically indirect taxes amounting to 3.77 per cent., you have to-day indirect taxation 31.84 per cent. as against direct taxation 64.39 per cent.

Mr. GILLETT: Surely the figure must be made up to 100?

Mr. SAMUEL: If so, it makes my case stronger, because it makes direct taxation 3.77 higher than I claimed. I was content to let it rest at 64.39. If I follow the hon. Gentleman's wish, I shall add 3.77. I am willing to do so, though I do not claim the right to do so.

Mr. GILLETT: If it is taxation, and if you are going to divide it between direct and indirect, you cannot very well leave certain taxes floating about in be-
tween the two things. Does he wish to withdraw it, and place it in direct taxation?

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not claim that in my speech.

Mr. GILLETT: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's argument is very far fetched and that, although he objects to exempt oil, oil might easily affect omnibus fares, char-a-bancs, motor bicycles, films, watches, clocks, and other items of that kind used by the working classes; and it seems to me that, after all, the hon. Member is asking rather too much when he asks us to eliminate this little figure. The only thing we welcome in his speech is his desire to prove that he is getting towards an ideal which is our ideal, because, when we argued before that these Tea and Sugar Duties ought to be removed, many hon. Members opposite said it was not fair that they should be taken off, and that if you got a working man who was a tee-totaler and a non-smoker, he would be paying no taxation at all unless you got it through sugar and tea. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself removed the Tea Duty, which was one of the few things left of any large amount, excepting the new Petrol Duty, which, I think, hits the working man more than the Conservative Government make out. In the circumstances, I claim the. Financial Secretary as a convert to the policy of the Labour party, and I am glad to welcome so distinguished a convert to the views which we have been pressing for some years.
Further on in his speech, the hon. Gentleman makes another claim, and that is that the tax revenue on necessities has also been reduced, and he points to that with much satisfaction. He is doing once again what I have seen done in municipal affairs in my own constituency, where the Tory party adopted a popular programme in order to try and save themselves from defeat. The hon. Member is doing the same thing and trying to forestall defeat by adopting some of the planks in the Labour platform; but so long as we have made our points, whether we get the benefit through a Tory Government or otherwise, it is all to the good of the persons concerned.
There is one other point dealing with Income Tax to which I should like to
draw attention, and it proves one of two things. Either it proves that we have resources, as has been argued from this side, that might be still further tapped, or it proves that some people with incomes of from £1,000 to £2,000 a year have been taxed too heavily in proportion to others. I should like to draw attention to the amount of tax that is paid by a man with an earned income of £1,000, who has a wife and three children. If he makes £1,000 purely as earned income, he pays at the present time £81 3s. in Income Tax, but if it is an investment income, he pays £114 10s.; if you take a man with £1,500, he pays £164 10s. on earned income or £214 10s. on investment income; and if you go up to £2,000, the figures are £264 10s. and £314 10s. respectively. If you take both Income Tax and Super-tax on even higher incomes, you will find that what happens all through is that there is a margin of £50, and only £50, however big the income is, even on £10,000 a year, in which case the tax on the earned income is £2,996 and on the investment income £3,046.
If you take, on the one hand, the case of a doctor, who has built up his practice, who is making from £1,000 to £2,000 a year, who has no income from any other source, and who has a wife and three children, the last named to educate, and then, on the other hand, if you take a man, with a wife and three children, who is not in business and is receiving £1,000 to £2,000 a year, I ask hon. Members whether they consider that a difference of £50 represents the difference between the actual monetary position of those two men. We know very well that the doctor's income might suddenly come to an end, through death or sickness, and, therefore, he is bound to be making provision for his wife and children, but, on the other hand, whatever happens to the man with the investment income, his wife and children, after what is taken in Death Duties, have the larger part of that income left to them.
Therefore, there are two things that have to be faced. Either this justifies the proposals of the Labour party under what was called, two or three years ago, the Surtax proposal, as set forth in the Minority Report of the Colwyn Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was one of the Members—either this is a justi-
fication for the belief that there is a class of people there who can afford a much heavier form of taxation—or, if hon. Members opposite are not prepared to accept that point of view, it means that we are putting a very unfair taxation on the other man. It would be difficult to convince me that a difference of £50 between these two classes of people represents anything like equity and fairness. In all probability, the answer to the question is that there is, in the hands of that section of the public which is receiving an investment income of this amount, a large untapped source of revenue, which, as has already been suggested, might easily be used to meet many of the public needs of our time.

Commander WILLIAMS: I do not wish to follow either of the two hon. Members who have spoken from the opposite benches very closely into the details of their figures as between direct and indirect taxation. I realise that it would be treading on very delicate ground, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in adjusting the balance between Income Tax and things of that kind, on the one side, and indirect taxation on the other, has, by the removal of the Tea Duty, deprived hon. Members opposite of the whole of their best electioneering perorations; and on such an occasion I feel that it is not quite right to put a finger into the wound and stir it, because they might feel that in so doing I should not be practising that spirit of kindness which is the controlling force behind the Conservative party.
Hon. Members opposite often ask us to look at the present conditions in regard to what they call the rentier class, by which they mean anyone getting a fixed income from Consols, Government loans, and various debentures. They say that they, and they alone for practical purposes, are benefiting by the fall in the cost of living, but suppose the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) had had a friend—I will not suggest that he would do anything so monstrously inhuman as to save money himself—who had saved £100 and invested it in Consols in 1913. He would have got his 2½ per cent., he would have seen the value of that money go down to about 50 per cent. of its pre-War value, all through the War he would have had absolutely no means of pick-
ing up what he was losing, and, in addition, he would have had to bear a very much heavier burden of taxation during that time. Supposing that another friend had been enabled to save another £100, and had invested it in, Government stock in 1918. He would have benefited as the hon. Member said, but the person who had saved earlier would have had the whole disadvantage of rising prices and taxation, and he would never yet have got back to anything like the position in which he found himself in pre-War days. I am quite sure it had only slipped the mind of the hon. Member opposite, but when he next mentions the subject on a public platform, I am sure he will not forget to mention as well that there are millions of money coming in to-day from men who are far worse off than they were and have never got anything like back to the position in which they were before the cost of living rose.
The hon. Member opposite also gave a rule of thumb sort of calculation, in which he stated that approximately £450,000,000 comes in from the Income Tax-paying section of the community, which gets something like £300,000,000 back in interest on War Loan. Taking that figure of £300,000,000, I wonder if any estimate has been made of the immense amount of interest on War Loan that goes into friendly societies and into the pockets of all the smaller interest-receiving people in this country, which, after all, must reduce that sum very considerably. There is also this fact, that even although you may make a balanced figure of that sort and say that a certain percentage is going back again by means of interest on War Loan, you cannot get away from the fact that those very people, whether they are big or small people, have actually loaned that money as one form of investment, and that it would have been just as possible for them to have invested it in any other form of enterprise, in which case this particular kind of attack would not have been made on them by the party opposite.
The real trouble now is that you have got, so far as the finance of this country is concerned, an immensely growing population, expanding every year, and that you have got a system of direct taxation
which is preventing, even according to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the savings of this country mounting in the same way as the needs for financial development would seem to require. In other words, you have a great pool of finance from which the wages of the nation in various ways must come. That great pool is being helped at present very largely, as has been pointed out on many occasions before, by the savings of the non-Income Tax-paying class. We all welcome those savings, and we all acknowledge their enormous help, but the fact remains that, as far as the higher scale of taxation is concerned, there is a tendency to a shrinkage in the actual amount which comes in. That tendency is becoming marked, and it is conceivable that, if there is a year without any great boom on the Stock Exchange, for example, that shrinkage may be very marked indeed. I say, quite frankly, that the heavier burdens which are advocated by the hon. Gentleman opposite, are not likely to be productive of increased facilities for the development of trade and industry. I am not in any sense grumbling at the burden of taxation; I am not standing up for extravagant expenditure, but the people who save and put back into industry, whoever they may be, are doing their part, and it is a dangerous doctrine to discourage these people by means of extraordinarily heavy taxation from playing their part in building up our great national industries.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) has put before us three objects of pity. The first object of pity is the party which sits on these Benches, because, as he tells us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stolen the thunder that we were preparing for the General Election. If I understand him aright, he is proposing that the Election shall be won by the Conservative party on the ground that they have taken 4d. off tea. We all remember that the leader of the Liberal party in a famous speech talked of 9d. for 4d., but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has very much improved on that, because he says, "A majority after the Election for 4d." The only thing that I can say to that is, "Wait and see." If he imagines that the large numbers of people who are utterly dissatisfied with the Conservative
party will be fobbed off by the fourpenny reduction in tea, which was a kind of death-bed repentance of the Chancellor, I can assure him that, from our point of view, he is very much mistaken. In the next place, he asked us to pity tie property owners, the people who at the beginning of the War had a certain amount of property—

Commander WILLIAMS: I did not ask you to pity them. At the end of my remarks I deliberately said that I was not complaining, and only asked that you should see both sides of the question when you deal with this.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want pity for them, I will not press the argument on that point. I understood that, though he changed his attitude later, it was the whole point of his remarks. In the third place, he wants us to pity the nation, because the people who ought to do all the saving are not having as much money left to them as he would like to see. I would like to set him against the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) who put up a very different story. The hon. Member for York assured us that in the last 4½ years £170,000,000 had been saved by the non-Income Tax paying section of the community, which I can well believe, and that in a single year at one time no less than £212,000,000 was being saved by this section. I have not the figures to prove or disprove that statement, but I set the hon. Member for York against the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay, and they can argue it out between them.

Commander WILLIAMS: I said that I agreed that savings had been made; I welcomed it, and I wanted it to be encouraged.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Member agrees with the hon. Member for York. Let us assume that it is correct. If the non-Income Tax paying classes, the people who have less than the narrow Income Tax limit have really saved out of their tiny superfluities £212,000,000, that blows to pieces the case that you have to leave large sums in the pockets of wealthy people because that is the only way the savings of this country can be put together. Here you have something like 100,000 people having between them an income, according to
the Income Tax figures, of £540,000,000—and I shall show shortly that that is really under the real figures—and yet they, and the large number of people who are not Super-tax payers, but who have considerable incomes, now save £200,000,000 or £250,000,000, while the poorer people, who have at most only just enough to go round, are able to save £212,000,000. Obviously, the best way of securing a greater saving for this country is to see that the superfluities of this wealthy class are reduced, and that they are not allowed to fritter money away in the manner that anybody who reads the picture papers can see, and that the hard working-classes may be given a chance to build up savings.
I referred a moment ago to the figure of £540,000,000 which is usually quoted and generally believed as the income of the Super-tax payers. I venture to point out that that figure is very much under the mark. Unfortunately, we have not the figures which will enable us to deal with this, since the 64th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue seven years ago. In that Report, it is pointed out that, in addition to the income which is reaped by individuals, there is a very considerable sum which never reaches individuals in the form of cash payments. In that year, the total sum of that kind was put down at no less than £250,000,000. It is explained in that Report that about two-thirds of that sum, or somewhere in the neighbourhood of £166,000,000, takes the form of additional reserves made by companies. That means that the owners of the ordinary shares of companies are really receiving in income £166,000,000 more than is credited in the form of income. The share of the Super-tax payers is probably well over £100,000,000 of this amount, so that the real income of the Super-tax payers is not £540,000,000 as had been supposed, but is probably well over £640,000,000.
Let us see what has happened to these people since 1920. In that year, if you add together the current rate of Income Tax which was 6s. in the £, and the amount which was paid by Super-tax payers as a whole, which averaged 2s. 6d., the position of the Super-tax payers was that they were paying on an average 8s. 6d. in the £. To-day, the flat rate of Income Tax is 4s., and the average rate of Super-tax is 2s.
So as against 8s. 6d. their taxation is now 6s.—a very considerable reduction. This has taken place during the immense fall in prices, which has added 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or even a larger percentage to the effective value of their incomes.
Here comes the point which is often neglected. It is argued that because the amount taken in taxation of an indirect kind has continued to bear about the same proportion to the amount taken in direct taxation, therefore the working people are no worse off than they were before. That is an entirely fallacious argument, for a simple reason. While the Super-tax and the higher Income Tax payers have been receiving the same money income all this period the working classes have had their incomes very considerably reduced. There was a fall in 1920 of between £600,000,000 and £700,000,000 a year in receipts that were earned by the working classes. If, therefore, it be true that the actual proportion of taxation which is taken by indirect means remains the same as it was, the real interpretation of that is that the working classes are paying a very much larger proportion of their slender resources than they did in former years.
Suppose you carried this still further. Suppose there were repeated reductions of the money wages of the working people you might theoretically—not practically—reduce and reduce them until finally they consisted only of the amount which went in indirect taxation. Then you would have the position that it could still be argued that it was no heavier a burden than it was before. As a matter of fact, it would then exhaust the greater part or the whole of their incomes. That could not actually happen, because it would mean that the taxes constituted the whole price of the article, but it illustrates the theoretical point that it is a fallacious argument to say that because the percentages are the same, the burden in proportion to the actual money income has not been very much increased on working people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his speech:
If I could have foreseen the lamentable course of events, I should certainly not have remitted 6d. from the Income Tax in 1925."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1929; col. 66, Vol. 227.]
We realise that the Chancellor was pursuing a very dangerous course in those days. He went at it with his accustomed vehemence, and justified it to the satisfaction of members of his own party, but, as so often happens in other ventures of the Chancellor, failure dogged his footsteps. To parody his own words, one might say that failure has been his constant companion, and the Tory majority his only solace. He attributes it, of course, to all the incidents of the coal stoppage. I venture to suggest that that is an entirely incorrect rendering of the facts of the case. The unfortunate events of 1926 are, in our opinion, the logical and necessary outcome of the Chancellor's policy. I have already dealt with the deflation policy, which had its bad effect upon industry and upon the coal trade in particular, and that played an active part in bringing about the disasters to which the Chancellor has referred. But, apart from all that, I do not think that the Chancellor ever appreciated the effect upon the psychology of the people of taking taxes off the broadest backs and putting them on to the narrowest backs. That has been the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout, and that has produced the psychology of unrest in this country which is thoroughly justified in view of the circumstances.
Another argument which hon. Members opposite have used over and over again is that a reduction of the Income Tax is the one effective means of increasing the purchasing power of the community and enabling trade to prosper, and that we ought to go on reducing the Income Tax in order that there may be more money available to the community. I venture to say that argument is entirely without foundation. If the Income Tax were not reduced, that money could be used in other ways more beneficial to the life of the nation. If it were used to relieve the burdens on working people their purchasing power would be to that extent increased, and as the working people spend their money in the staple trades of the country their purchasing power is much more valuable in giving employment than the same purchasing power in the hands of the super-rich. The money might be spent on social services, where it would twice bless the country; It would bless
it by giving employment and stimulating industry, and bless it again through adding to the health and well-being of the people. It might be spent by the Government in developing the capital resources of the country.
I would remind the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay that the State can develop the capital resources of the country just as well as private individuals can, and if the money is spent by the State in that way we know where it goes, whereas if it is left in the hands of the super-rich while some of it may go in capital development a great deal of it may be merely frittered away in quite useless and unnecessary expenditure. Of course, it may be spent by the State and by other people wastefully. I am the last person to defend wasteful extravagance by the State, which in many ways, I think, is most baneful to the body politic, but even then it is no more injurious to the well-being of the nation than money which is spent wastefully by private individuals.
That is really our case; but what is the good of putting forward our case amid the dying embers of an old Parliament? We all know that speeches made during these last few days will not change the policy of the Government. There is only one thing which is going to change the policy of the Government, and that is a change of the Government itself, and we appeal from this House, with its set and determined partisanship of the wealthy classes of the country, to the people of the country, who, we believe, will send a different Government with a different atmosphere and a different point of view to represent them in the Parliament that is to be.

Mr. SAMUEL: Probably it will be convenient if I reply now to the points which have been put to me. I do not think I can alter the opinions of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) more especially after what he has said. Even if I were to attempt to reply to his points I should be trespassing on the patience of the House by going over matters which were dealt with on Thursday. I have listened carefully to the three or four questions which were put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), and as he wishes me to deal with
them I will endeavour to do so. I took down his words as best I could, and his first point concerned a reduction of the figure for other charges in the Inland Revenue Report. He said the figures showed a fall from £500,000,000 to £335,000,000. The column of figures shown in the report includes the reductions of assessments owing to over-charges. There is also an amount representing the claims by taxpayers for relief on account of losses. Further, we are now getting away from the period when there were in existence such taxes as the Excess Profits Tax and the Corporation Profits Tax. We are also getting away from the slump of 1921 and the period when Income Tax assessments came down owing to business losses. That is the reason for the reduction about which the hon. Member asked for an explanation.
His next point was as to a growth in the allowances for the repair of houses since 1922. The growth in those allowances is due to two causes. There was a revaluation of property in 1923–24. When the property was revalued a higher measure of allowance was given for repairs. For example the less expensive houses, those up to an annual value of £40, were then given an allowance of 25 per cent. for repairs, that is one-fourth in place of the old allowance of only one-sixth. That change operated to give a larger allowance on a higher annual valuation, and that accounts for the increase in the total allowance to which the hon. Gentleman drew my attention.
Another point on which he asked for information was as to the allowances for wear and tear of machinery. I think that is a broad interpretation of his question, if it is not restated by me quite accurately in detail. The explanation is this. The figures he quoted are in respect of the percentages annually allowed for wear and tear of plant and machinery. They are allowed off the assessment, and they relate to cost. Allowances have to be made to cover wear and tear of machinery and plant, and amounts are put aside for obsolescence and so on. The amount allowed varies each year, because sometimes new machinery may be installed, and then the basic figure upon which the allowance is made will necessarily be very different from what it is in the case of old machinery without additions of new. In some years this allowance is held in suspence and carried for-
ward to years in which a trading profit is made. As we get further away from the slump of 1921 the allowances for wear and tear will rise by contrast with the years in which those allowances were carried forward. I think that, without going too deeply into detail, these explanations answer the points which the hon. Member has raised. We have had a very good tempered and instructive Debate upon this Clause, and I hope the Committee will now take a decision upon it.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps he will say a word or two on the points of hardship which were raised on the Second Reading Debate. I think this would be a very useful opportunity for him to do so.

Mr. SAMUEL: I should have been delighted to do so, but it would have been quite out of order. We are in Committee now, and dealing with the first Clause of the Bill, and I should have been rebuked if I had dealt with points which are quite outside the scope of the Clause now under consideration.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Repeal of duty on bets. 16 and 17 Geo. 5. c. 22.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GILLETT: I do not wish to discuss the general question of the Betting Duty, which has excited so much interest, but before we agree to this Clause I wish to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, whether if we agree to this Clause we are committing ourselves either actually, or by our silence, to agreeing to the new proposals which the Government are putting forward at some future time to compensate for the estimated loss which will arise from the repeal of this duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a definite statement that if he is in office after the election he will make proposals for obtaining revenue from bookmakers. One which I want specially to criticise is the proposed extra charge for telephones.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member will be bound,
as regard the other proposals, by the attitude he takes on this Clause, but he will not be in order in discussing now what he thinks those new proposals will be.

Mr. GILLETT: If I thought the proposals are going to be worse than the betting tax which is being abolished should I be in order in arguing along those lines?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would depend upon how far the hon. Member went into the future.

Mr. GILLETT: What I want to say is that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is introducing a very dangerous precedent in one of his proposals.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then I am afraid the hon. Member must not touch those proposals.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 3 (Repeal of railway passenger duty 5 and 6 Vict. c. 79.) and 4 (Continuation of Customs Duties imposed by s.  7 of 15 and 16 Geo.  5. c.  36) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Repeal of tea duty.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. GILLETT: I do not know whether there is any truth in the statement or not, but I wish to ask the hon. Member whether, as has been alleged, the repeal of this duty has resulted in a loss of work to a large number of people who are engaged in the collection of this duty. I have no definite information that that is so, but I have heard it suggested in one or two places; in fact, I have been told that some people have already been discharged. I wish it to be understood that I am not making the accusation; I only say that I have heard it and I would like to ask whether there is any truth in it. I am quite prepared to believe that it is not true and if that be so it is far better that the statement should be at once denied, because while this is a Clause in which we on this side of the House are very much interested, I certainly and equally I am sure, other hon. Members opposite, have no desire to see this useful reform brought about at the cost of suffering to a number of people.

Mr. SAMUEL: As far as Government Departments are concerned, I have not heard anything of that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Construction, short title, and repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule (Enactments repealed) agreed to.

Bill, reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Power of Board of Trade to make orders increasing authorised amount of share capital or of loans), 2 (Authorised amount of loans), 3 (Increase of authorised amount of reserve fund or of special purposes fund), 4 (Extension of powers of purchase of residual products) and 5 (Supply of gas by undertakers to premises outside limits of supply) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Undertakers supplying more than a certain quantity of gas to charge on basis of British thermal units.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.0 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: In opposing this Motion, I want to know why it is that the undertakers do not supply the gas at the price that is set out, and at the price that is generally understood by those who use it for lighting and other purposes. It is often found that when these undertakers are given such powers as are asked for in this Bill, they do not carry them out, and I hope that something is going to be done to strengthen the Measure in this respect. I will take, for example, the many thousands of cases in London where a check-meter is used by the tenant or sub-tenant, and probably there may be a dozen check-meters in the same house. Instead of paying the price laid down per unit of gas consumed, very often the main tenant can secure the gas at the price fixed by the Bill, but
where there are check-meters the gas can be charged at a higher figure to the subtenants. I think this is a piece of robbery on the part of the main tenants, and it is a practice which is winked at by the gas undertakings. I hope that after this protest something will be done by the gas companies to prevent the subtenants being robbed in this way.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is, I think, outside the scope of the Bill, because Clause 6 deals only with the question whether the therm system should be applied generally to the system of charging in the case of certain small undertakings. This Measure deals only with the gas supplied by the undertakers, and if there is an intermediate person between the consumer and the people who generate the gas, it is only in that case that the position referred to by the hon. Member for Rochdale arises.

Mr. KELLY: Does not this Bill insist upon the gas company selling at a particular price?

Mr. WILLIAMS: This Bill lays down that the gas shall be sold at a certain price to the purchaser. When the purchaser retails the gas in the way described by the hon. Member, the other persons referred to are not protected at the moment. That grievance is not limited to gas, but it applies equally to electricity. It is in the interests of the company that gas should be sold to the consumers as cheaply as possible, because they want to extend the consumption of gas. It is difficult to see how the point which has been raised can be dealt with effectively—I doubt whether it can be dealt with at all—under this Bill. I believe it is outside the scope of this Measure, and can only be dealt with by general legislation. The general principle that has been raised by the hon. Member cannot be dealt with in this Measure, and I hope he will not press his opposition to this Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 (Extension of Board of Trade's power to make special orders under principal Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Minor Amendments of principal Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Before this Clause is adopted, I should like to point out that we are concerned as to the result of one of the Amendments which appears in the Schedule. Obviously, the first Amendment which appears in the Schedule and is dealt with in Clause 8 is capable of being used very widely, and there are a number of people interested in the use of gas who fear that this may give wider powers to the Board of Trade and the gas undertakings in regard to the sliding scale. It is very necessary, in view of the protection provided when the profits have exceeded a certain amount to have some provision for the distribution of profits to the shareholders when the maximum has been reached in order to secure a reduction in price. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should explain in more detail how it is intended to operate this Amendment, and what safeguards the Board of Trade propose for the protection of the consumer. I do not want to appear contentious about these matters, but on this side of the Committee we feel it is necessary to safeguard the public, and everything will turn upon the way the Board of Trade operate the Clauses as amended by the Schedule.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not think we need be perturbed about these minor Amendments. If the fundamental conditions on which the sliding scale was drawn up are altered, then the basis of the sliding scale should be changed. In the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, a fundamental change was made because of the complete alteration in the value of money which occurred as the result of the War. It seems to me very desirable that there should be power to make such adjustments in future as may be necessary. I would point out that if the Board of Trade makes an amending Order revising the powers of charging under the original Order, it must be done in such a way that those interested are not prejudiced or benefited and their general position must be preserved. In this Measure the fundamental principle of the sliding scale is preserved,
but power exists to take into account any fundamental changes affecting an individual undertaking. I think the powers taken are reasonable; they should facilitate the working of the industry and at the same time they make minor adjustments possible from time to time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 9 (Interpretation) and 10 (Short title, citation, construction and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule (Minor Amendments of Gas Regulation Act, 1920) agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

COMPANIES BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Mode of forming incorporated company.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I say that the Opposition are very anxious that this Measure should pass, and what I am going to say is not intended as obstruction? As a matter of fact, we want to see a Bill passed which will be in the interests of industry generally, and bring into operation a number of important Amendments, to the law which were enacted last year. In dealing with the first Clause it is very inconvenient for the Members of the Committee to have to deal with a Measure containing 385 Clauses without having a copy of the report of the Joint Committee available. It is not as though we were simply dealing with an ordinary Consolidation Act, because there are also quite a large number of Clauses dealing with existing statutes. While I wish to express my thanks for this Measure, I wish to say that the number of advance copies of the Bill has been quite inadequate for the number of hon. Members interested in this Measure, and we are going to pass this Bill without having the opportunity of examining the large number of detailed alterations which have been in-
serted in another place on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I ask that the Government should not in future allow a Bill of this kind to come to the Committee stage until the House has been properly informed of the actual position. I acknowledge my indebtedness to those who have prepared this Bill, but I should have appreciated it much more if I had had a copy of the Bill a week ago, in order that I might have had an opportunity of examining its details. I do not oppose the taking of the further stages of the Committee to-day, but I hope what has been done in this case will not be taken as a precedent.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) for the attitude he has taken up. I realise that there is a grievance because the Report of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has not been printed, and is not available to all the Members of the House. I believe the hon. Member for Hills-borough has had a chance of reading an advance copy of that Report, which I have not seen, but I would like to remind the House that the Lord Chancellor reported that the Joint Committee had presented a unanimous Report, in which they informed their Lordships that it was pure consolidation, and urged that it should be passed into law during the present Session. As the Bill is pure consolidation, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough is not going to oppose the further stages of this Measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 91, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clauses 92 to 155 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am very loath, Sir Dennis, to interrupt the record speed-making which you are achieving, but I want to draw attention to the fact that, although there is no fundamental alteration in the Clauses—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: To what particular Clause is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am speaking to the Motion that you put from the Chair, "That Clauses 92 to 155 stand part of the Bill." I think that that was the Question which you put to the Committee, and that, in the circumstances, I am not called upon to mention the particular Clause to which I am addressing myself.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that, for the sake of order, I must ask the hon. Member to speak to a particular Clause. I was putting the Clauses, for the sake of convenience, in blocks, but, if the hon. Member wishes me to stop at any particular Clause, in order that he may discuss it, I will do so.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Your reply, Sir Dennis, is devastating to me. You have now gone away from the general proposition that this whole range of Clauses should be ordered to stand part of the Bill in one Motion, and, therefore, it is not possible for me to remain in order and speak upon the general point that I wished to raise. I do not wish to speak to a particular Clause, but to address myself to a block of Clauses which is included in the Motion put from the Chair, and which is headed "Accounts and Audit." If you say that I am unable to do that, I do not propose to raise any further point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member really wants to say something on a particular Clause which is a proper subject for discussion in Committee, I have no wish, and it would not be right for me, to shut him out from doing so. I was only putting the Clauses in blocks for convenience, and I will stop at any particular one if desired.

Mr. ALEXANDER: If you would be so kind as to put Clause 122 separately, I could make the point that I want to make upon that Clause.

Question, "That Clauses 92 to 121 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 122.—(Accounts.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER: On this Clause I want to raise a question now, so that the Parliamentary Secretary can consider it before we come to the last Clause in the Bill, dealing with the Short Title
and Commencement. Clause 122 of the Bill deals with accounts, and the law on this matter has, of course, been amended by the provisions of the Act of 1928. It is exceedingly important, in our judgment, that shareholders and members of the public should receive such additional protection as is afforded by the Act of 1928 as early as possible, but the date of the coming into operation of these amending provisions has not yet been fixed. We on this side are very disappointed that the additional safeguards for the public and for shareholders are not wider and more binding than those which have been secured in the legislation of 1928, but, even though they have not been as great as we could desire, we are anxious that what has been done should be put into operation as early as possible. I take this opportunity, therefore, of asking that we may have as specific a statement as possible, before the end of the Committee stage of the Bill, as to when these provisions are likely to come into operation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 123 to 352, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 353.—(Obligation of company incorporated in Channel Islands or Isle of Man to deliver documents to registrar.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. KELLY: I should like to ask whether or not the Parliaments in the Channel Islands and the House of Keys in the Isle of Man have been consulted with regard to this Clause. I find that there is a great habit in the House of Commons of mentioning these two places without any consultation with the people there, despite the fact that they are considered to have their own Parliaments.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This Clause has nothing to do with the question of the jurisdiction of those parts of the British Empire. It merely lays down what companies registered under the Parliaments of those parts of the Empire, and carrying on business shall do here. We are not in any way interfering with the measure of sovereign rights which is enjoyed by those parts of the British Empire.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: As a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) that this Clause does no more than repeat a Section of the Act of 1928, and, therefore, if the necessity for consultation arose, it arose when that Act was being passed.

Mr. KELLY: I agree that that was the time when consultation should take place, but, even if it were omitted then, it should not be omitted on other occasions when there is a necessity for consultation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 354 to 384, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 385.—(Short title and commencement.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: With regard to the request of the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Alexander), it is a little difficult to state definitely at this moment when the Order in Council will be made with regard to bringing this Bill into operation. The hon. Member will realise that under some Clauses a number of Rules will have to be made, and people outside who have to study Acts of Parliament like this must have sufficient time for their study, while no doubt certain people will desire to write books about the Act. We have, therefore, to give them sufficient time. Without in any way committing the Department, I would suggest that possibly the 1st November might be an appropriate date for the bringing into operation of those Clauses of the Act which are not already in operation. There are, I think, two in operation already. Of course, I cannot give a definite undertaking that the date shall be the 1st November. There is always the chance that an earlier date may be possible, but we shall have to find out how long it will take to make the necessary preparations.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his statement, which has gone a long way to meet my object. I was very much afraid that, unless we could say that here today preliminary notice had been given
to the people concerned with the administration of the Companies Act of 1928, that its main provisions would come into operation next year, there would have been a further reason for delay in the new Parliament, no matter which party happens to be in office. I think the question of writing a book of exposition of the provisions of the Act is really beside the point. This Clause itself says:
This Act shall come into operation on the first day on which, by virtue of orders made by His Majesty in Council under Subsection (4) of Section one hundred and eighteen of the Companies Act, 1928, all the provisions of that Act will be in operation.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of what he has said, whether he would accept a manuscript Amendment, if it were handed in and moved now, that, after—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think, from the hon. Member's remarks, that that would be going beyond the Clause which is now before the Committee. Apparently, he is discussing now an Act of Parliament which has already been passed, and which is referred to in the words of this Clause. I think he will see that that is a matter which cannot be dealt with under this Clause.

Mr. ALEXANDER: With great respect, I submit to you, Sir Dennis, that we must have some regard to the discussions in the House on this general question. When the Companies Bill was first introduced last year by the President of the Board of Trade, he said that it would not be advisable to operate the Clauses of that Bill until the general law had been consolidated. Then we were told that a Consolidation Bill would be prepared—this is the Bill—and that the amending provisions of the Act of 1928 would be put into operation as early as possible after the passing of the Consolidation Bill. Now we find that this Clause is drawn in such a way that the Bill will not come into operation until the Orders in Council, under the Section of the 1928 Act dealing with the Short Title and Commencement, are made by His Majesty. What we are asking on this Clause is, either that we should receive a very definite assurance that the date fixed by the Orders in Council under the Act quoted in this Clause shall be an early one, or, alternatively, that you should allow an Amendment which will
fix the last day on which those Orders shall come into operation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: While the hon. Member was reasonably entitled to ask when it was intended that this Bill, when ii becomes an Act, should come into operation, the answer to that question depends upon an Act of Parliament the terms of which we cannot discuss in this Committee. As regards proposing any manuscript Amendment at the present time, I am afraid that the hon. Member has missed his chance; the Question before the Committee is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Question put, and agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. WILLIAMS: I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues for their assistance to-day in getting through the Committee stage.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is only because of our extreme anxiety that the Bill should not be missed in the list of those that receive the Royal Assent in this Session of Parliament that we have taken this course. We are rather concerned that the consideration of so important a Bill should have had to be so rushed as it has been. We hope it will not be a precedent?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

BRIDGES BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to make orders as to reconstruction, maintenance, etc., of bridges.)

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out the words "do so." and to insert instead thereof the words "hold an inquiry."
All six Amendments in my name are purely drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out the words "other than any right to take tolls."

These words are redundant.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: May I ask why the Clause is not to apply to tolls?

Colonel ASHLEY: For the simple reason that the Committee came to the definite conclusion, as indeed was the intention, that no tolls should be touched under the Bill.

Sir R. SANDERS: It does not make any difference to the possibility in future of the extinction of tolls?

Colonel ASHLEY: Not at all.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I am very interested to observe the right hon. Baronet's interest in this point. I hope, with his great influence on his side of the House, he will see that in future something more is done in wiping out these tolls than has been done up to the present. I ought to make our position quite plain, as it was in Committee. We objected very strongly to any provision being made in the Bill which might be interpreted by a Minister, who might be to us of the wrong colour, to enable the owners of tolls to go on collecting them after there had been a large expenditure of public money upon main roads. I was told that probably my fears were based upon false premises, but there was some doubt in our minds about it and, after some discussion, it was agreed by both sides that any reference to tolls should come right out of the Bill. The understanding is, I take it, that the present procedure will remain open and that there will be negotiations between local authorities and the owners of toll rights for the extinction of these tolls as occasion may arise. In view of the increased percentage grants which have been very kindly promised by the Ministry of Transport in respect of other works under the Bridges Bill, I hope the intervention of some private or unofficial person, like the right hon. Baronet, will result in a higher percentage grant being promised for the assistance of local authorities who will be buying out the existing rights of toll owners.

Mr. MacLAREN: After the speech just delivered I may say I was appre-
hensive because of these words being brought under discussion in Committee. The fears already expressed by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) might give toll owners ground to look forward with optimism to what they are going to wring out of the Ministry with regard to the buying out of these tolls. I am not at all anxious that there should be a ramp by toll owners because they have the Ministry at their mercy. There is much that is contentious in this Bill, which we allowed to pass in the hope that it would pass quickly into law. I intervened because I am afraid the hon. Member for Hillsborough was rather encouraging toll owners to get very busy. I am very apprehensive of the land owners already, without encouraging their enthusiasm any more. I thank the Minister for coming at last to this point of deleting these words from the Bill. It was difficult to convince him in Committee that they had no right to be there at all, but for these mercies let us be thankful.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to bridges of railway and canal companies and dock authorities.)

Amendment made:

In page 6, line 15, leave out the words "that may arise under this proviso," and insert instead thereof the words
whether such consent has been unreasonably withheld."—[Colonel Ashley.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Apportionment of Costs.)

Amendments made:

In page 7, line 5, after the word "that," insert the words "unless otherwise agreed."

In line 24, leave out the words "subject as aforesaid, and."

In line 37, leave out the words:
not being an order made upon the application of the owner of the bridge,
and insert instead thereof the words
upon the application of a highway authority."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Commander WILLIAMS: I thank my right hon. Friend for this very useful piece of legislation. May I also say
how much a lot of us appreciate the very great assistance that has been given by the Opposition in getting through this really constructive piece of legislation. May I add my congratulations on the great wisdom of the Liberal party in abstaining from debate and their complete absence from the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. MacLAREN: This Bill contains some things which we object to but which we did not make a matter of contention on the Committee stage. What we felt all through was that private owners are not going to be called upon to pay any more for the construction of the bridges than they would have been had this Measure not been demanded. We discussed this in Committee but it is quite appropriate to bring it up now. The Bill safeguards private owners in so far as they will be called upon to pay towards the reconstruction of the bridges, whereas the local authorities and the Road Fund will have to make up the major portion of the money required. We should have liked to see a Bill coming upon the owners of the bridges to pay their just proportion towards reconstruction. We do not feel that they are being called upon even under the Bill, in fact they are being safeguarded from paying their due proportion. That, therefore, gives rise to contention as to who should be the rightful owner of the bridge after reconstruction. The Government would not give way on the point. We feel that if the local authorities and the Minister of Transport pay the major portion of the money, that should determine the ownership after reconstruction. I know the difficulties with regard to the railway bridges proviso.
No doubt when the Bill passes into law private owners of bridges will stand to gain considerably, and it is well on the Third Reading to register the fact that private owners, and the owners of land on either side of the bridges, will gain considerably at the expense of the local authorities and the Road Fund. We hope these bridges will be speedily put into commission and that the oversight which we really think it was on the part of the Ministry not to review the problem of the bridges before they undertook many of the main roads will be removed and the roads will now be brought into fuller use by better bridges and that there will be
no excuse, certainly as far as the private owners are concerned, for holding up local authorities from carrying out these developments. We had many differences of opinion on the Bill but we were anxious that it should become law so that it should not be laid at our door that we have held it up. I thought it well on the Third Reading to record our point of view for allowing it to pass unchallenged.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I rejoice that this Bill is about to pass the Third Reading. I would only say that I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) was quite wrong—[Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Hon. Members should listen to the speaker. If they wish to study extraneous literature, I would suggest that they go outside.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I think that the hon. Member was not quite correct as to the cost of reconstruction. As I understand the Bill, the private owner who has a bridge reconstructed either by agreement or by order of the Minister will be expected to pay a fair share of all liabilities. [Interruption.] The Minister has to apportion a fair share as to the reconstructed cost, and the private owner will, in my opinion, gain nothing except the facility of the reconstruction being carried out which he himself would eventually have had to meet. [Interruption.] I very much regret the action of hon. Members of the party opposite in Committee in keeping the toll bridges out of the Bill. I think that we have destroyed the very object which they themselves hope to effect. The local authorities are deprived of any means of utilising the Bill as a method of getting the Minister to decide what is a fair arrangement to be made between the owners of the toll bridge and the highway authority. The whole matter is now left in the air. The toll owners are in a position to make whatever terms they please.

Mr. KELLY: I think that the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has not put the case fairly before the House. The intention in the original Bill was to place the toll owner in a rather advantageous position.
While you might strengthen and widen a bridge or reconstruct it you were still allowing him to collect the toll, after you had spent the money. The tolls were still to remain in his hands giving him a bargaining power which would enable a much greater exaction to be made from the Government or from the authority. That was the position with which we were faced. We found in Committee that while you were going to spend all this money upon bridges which require strengthening and reconstructing you still left the highway authorities in the position of not being able to collect the tolls, and allowed the owner to have a free run. Therefore, I think we are justified in protecting the community against that position. I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman himself saw that situation as the discussion went on. I am not going to sing the praises of this Measure. I accept it because it gives us something better with regard to the bridges of the country. I am hoping for a great deal more to be done in the very near future by those sitting with me on these benches.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I am not sure to what extent one of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) could be heard owing to the noise occurring in the House. I think that the assertion he made was that the owners were not paying, under this Bill, the sum which they ought to pay, and I think that assertion should be denied. The owners, of course, had to put up the bridges, and they have had to maintain them for the use of the people everywhere.

Mr. MacLAREN: I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. Within the arrangements laid down and recognised by law, the private owner of bridges cay be called upon to pay his proper contribution. In view of the fact of the development of roads and the vast expansion of bridge building, I merely pointed out that under this Bill he might be called upon to pay more than he is obliged to pay under his agreement.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I am trying to show that. The liability is placed upon the owner, and why he should be called upon to pay more than the benefit he would
receive from the rebuilding of a bridge I do not know. Why the owner of a bridge should himself pay more because some extra liability, from which, possibly, he could obtain no possible advantage, is put upon him, I cannot see. I think that the statement of the hon. Member ought not to be allowed to pass without a denial.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The statement which has just been made by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) is interesting, but I do not think he quite meets the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). My hon. Friend said that proper expenditure is covered, but he also stated that this Bill would relieve, in future, the owners of bridges from obligations which they might have had to meet if it had not been for the strict limits which they had obtained in previous Statutes. All you have to remember is that these Statutes were introduced with a view to giving bridge owners certain duties for maintaining a free way for the public over the part of the road where the bridge was built. They had obligations laid upon them. The Director of Road Transport steps in, and that position has to be reviewed. On the whole, under this Bill, I think that bridge owners come very well out of the matter. Indeed, if it is not so in regard to those who have to maintain these bridges for the free use of the public, it must not be forgotten that, with the enormous development of motor transport in our country, for the last 50 or 60 years many owners of toll rights have made a small fortune. It does not need very lengthy inquiries to find out the true state of affairs. The quotations for shares in some of the companies which have toll rights shows exactly the state of prosperity they enjoy.
The only other point which I make on the passing of this Bill is one which was referred to on the Second Reading. It is a matter of great regret to us that so much public expenditure should be contemplated under the Bill, and yet at the same time so much of the property reconstructed should remain in private ownership. That is a point of principle to which we drew attention on more than one occasion during the passage of the Bill through Committee. We expressed
our disapproval and divided the Committee on the point. I do not think that it will help matters to dwell upon it here. Otherwise, I am very glad that something has been done to make it possible to develop work on the bridges of the country and to provide work for those who will be employed on these improvements. I agree very cordially with what fell from the lips of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), that it is very significant, that although we find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) busily engaged right through the country saying, "We can conquer Unemployment" mainly by works on roads and bridges and the like, when we discussed this Bill in detail for a whole day in Committee, not a solitary Member of the Liberal party appointed to serve on that Committee joined in the discussion. Not a Member of that party appointed to serve on the Standing Committee has attempted, either on the Second Reading or on the Third Reading of this Bill, to join in the Debates. It is a pity that we cannot have their very important views on this matter put forward in the House where they could be checked, rather than upon the hoardings and upon the platforms.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ST. JOHN'S HOSPITAL (WINCHESTER) AND OTHER CHARITIES BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1929.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (Amendment) Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
6.0 p.m.
This is merely a Measure amending the Act of 1929, which includes various suggestions made by Queen Anne's bounty and several diocesan boards. It is non-contentious, and has been passed by the Ecclesiastical Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

PAROCHIAL REGISTERS AND RECORDS MEASURE, 1929.

Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parochial Registers and Records Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
Very few words are necessary to commend this Measure to the House. It is one for safeguarding the custody of parish records and registers. The report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, who have considered the matter, is a favourable one. They consider that it is not only necessary for the religious authorities that these registers and records should be properly preserved, but that it is also of benefit to the general public that that should be done. The Measure has been approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee.

Sir H. SLESSER: The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly right in commending this Measure to the House. It is a tragedy that some such Measure was not law years ago. The wanton and idle destruction of ecclesiastical registers and records in the past has made the work of compiling history a matter of great difficulty. We must be grateful to think that in the future these registers will be kept in a proper condition, under proper responsibility, and that these documents, which really are public property, will be properly preserved. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE LAITY MEASURE, 1929.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Representation of the Laity Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
This Measure does not excite any party controversy. It does not change the method of representation of the laity in the church councils, whether parochial, rurideaconal or diocesan, or in the House of Assembly. It fills certain gaps and provides for the filling of vacancies and for improvements of certain machinery in regard to giving notice, and so on. It has been approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY MEASURE, 1929.

Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Westminster Abbey Measure, 1929, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
This Measure has absolutely nothing to do with the vexed question of the position of the new sacristy in Westminster Abbey; that is entirely outside the scope of this Measure. This Measure re-apportions the annual income of the Dean and Chapter and the Fabric Fund. That matter was dealt with in 1888, and has not been amended since. Everyone knows the changes that there have been in rates and taxes and the value of money since that date, and it is now
desired, by means of a scheme drawn up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to reapportion the income of Westminster Abbey as between the staff and the Fabric Fund and the cost of the services. The scheme has to be drawn up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to receive the approval of the Dean and Chapter and the Visitor. I have ascertained that the Visitor is the Crown, and I am told that the Crown in such cases is represented by the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, there is every safeguard that any scheme which may be drawn up will have proper consideration and will be satisfactory. I believe that the Measure is quite non-controversial. It has received the consideration of the Ecclesiastical Committee, who have reported favourably upon it.

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Six o'Clock.